Merge lp://qastaging/~doanac/ubuntu-ci-services-itself/bsbuilder-better-error-handling into lp://qastaging/ubuntu-ci-services-itself

Proposed by Andy Doan
Status: Merged
Merged at revision: 355
Proposed branch: lp://qastaging/~doanac/ubuntu-ci-services-itself/bsbuilder-better-error-handling
Merge into: lp://qastaging/ubuntu-ci-services-itself
Prerequisite: lp://qastaging/~doanac/ubuntu-ci-services-itself/bsbuilder-pass-subticket
Diff against target: 470 lines (+273/-40)
5 files modified
branch-source-builder/bsbuilder/run_worker.py (+103/-23)
branch-source-builder/cupstream2distro/packageinppamanager.py (+4/-7)
branch-source-builder/setup.py (+2/-1)
branch-source-builder/watch_ppa.py (+163/-8)
juju-deployer/branch-source-builder.yaml.tmpl (+1/-1)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://qastaging/~doanac/ubuntu-ci-services-itself/bsbuilder-better-error-handling
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Francis Ginther Approve
PS Jenkins bot (community) continuous-integration Approve
Review via email: mp+210312@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

Commit message

bsbuilder: fix serval error cases

This branch helps prevent:

* returning success when an upload fails
* ensuring a package version is bumped if a prior version of the
  package has landed in the ppa before
* the package wasn't signed

Description of the change

This is another piece of the fginther bsb-fixes branch. This helps give better errors information back to the user.

I'd like to get tests written for the upload_ppa logic some day, but I think that's aiming a little too high for this week.

I've tested this with two tickets: 1 showed a failure because there was a newer package version in the PPA. The other was a proper package that built.

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :

PASSED: Continuous integration, rev:355
http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/uci-engine-ci/367/
Executed test runs:

Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/uci-engine-ci/367/rebuild

review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Francis Ginther (fginther) wrote :

This is a good separation of the package building (check and watch) updates. As Andy was able to refactor this, I'll approve.

review: Approve

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches